IRS Scandal

[Vyxn]

So you can use the IG report but cherry pick parts of it? Sounds like your typical conversations.

the only information i used from the IG repost was to show there wasn't an increase in the application the year they decide to illegally target conservative groups

[Wells]

the only information i used from the IG repost was to show there wasn't an increase in the application the year they decide to illegally target conservative groups

So in other words you used the parts you agree with and not the ones you don't.

[obdigore]

So in other words you used the parts you agree with and not the ones you don't.

Which is what happens when you start investigating when you already know what conclusion you want.

Vyxn, will you do me a favor and add this to your sig "An open mind is like an open wound, liable to fester."

Appreciate it.

[Saucexorzski]

No we the people that don't agree with his ass backwards point of view, usually do the whole innocent until proven guilty or in this case innocent until proven involvement. In Vyxn's eyes, Obama is guilty until proven innocent simply because he has motive if he wanted to.

And he is allowed to hold that view, because he is in no way, shape, or form the arbiter of justice in this matter. The hearings are happening to determine what did in fact take place. Despite Vyxn's view, a view held by many in the US, our president is still free and not in jail. Your fear of "the right" stepping over the line of innocent until proven guilty has not come to fruition.

[Vyxn]

I mean at worst here all there is is evidence that an IRS office fucked up with minimal damage done and some officials weren't entirely forthcoming about it.

Hardly the scandal of the century.

so your one of the 31% of America that believes that. while 56% like me believes the opposite

[Wells]

And he is allowed to hold that view, because he is in no way, shape, or form the arbiter of justice in this matter. The hearings are happening to determine what did in fact take place. Despite Vyxn's view, a view held by many in the US, our president is still free and not in jail. Your fear of "the right" stepping over the line of innocent until proven guilty has not come to fruition.

This is the most bizarre defense of a terrible argument.

---------- Post added 2013-05-24 at 03:54 AM ----------

so your one of the 31% of America that believes that. while 56% like me believes the opposite

This matters how?

[Vyxn]

So in other words you used the parts you agree with and not the ones you don't.

i believe in provable facts which that list was. i don't always believe in assumptions like he made saying he didn't believe it was politically motivated which how could he know for sure he didn't question anyone from the WH

[Wells]

i believe in provable facts which that list was. i don't always believe in assumptions like he made saying he didn't believe it was politically motivated which how could he know for sure he didn't question anyone from the WH

Might want to question you too since you have clear motivation here as well.

Makes as much sense.

[Grizzly Willy]

so your one of the 31% of America that believes that. while 56% like me believes the opposite

And? You surely don't mean to imply that these numbers carry any weight, do you?

[obdigore]

i believe in provable facts which that list was. i don't always believe in assumptions like he made saying he didn't believe it was politically motivated which how could he know for sure he didn't question anyone from the WH

And again, why do you think the WH was involved with this? Because you WANT to. Not because there is any evidence to support it.

[zhero]

We must conclude that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. It is a much better option than willful ignorance.

The IRS has ADMITTED that they picked specific political viewpoints to go after. Whether you like a law or tax status is irrelevant. It must be applied evenly, which it wasn't. If they had applied this scrutiny to every group that applied for tax-exempt status there wouldn't be a scandal.

the tax exempt status isn't supposed to go to groups using the money primarily for political means, which is why they were targeting groups with political keywords.

the fact that 75% of groups targeted were NOT conservative groups means that they are blowing it out of proportion when they say they were being unfairly targeted.

so your one of the 31% of America that believes that. while 56% like me believes the opposite

the entire thing is just being blown out of proportion, the phrase mountain out of mole hills underplays how much of a deal they are making out of it.

[Saucexorzski]

This is the most bizarre defense of a terrible argument.

It's not as bizarre as you make it out to be. Many people speculated on the guilt or innocence of those in culpable positions (OJ Simpson, Bush, Cheney). Validation to who is correct will occur upon the findings of the hearings. Your claim of a terrible argument is juxtaposed by your own that it is imposable for Obama to have had any hand in the wrong doings of the IRS in this matter. I do not think there is currently enough evidence to claim that he did, but that does NOT mean it is out of the realm of possibility.

[s_bushido]

I do not think there is currently enough evidence to claim that he did, but that does NOT mean it is out of the realm of possibility.

That's his whole point... There's nothing implicating Obama, at all, other than the fact that he's the current president and universal scapegoat. You can't start from a premise like this and then look for evidence to suit your claim. It's as ridiculous as the people who think that the Bush administration had a hand in 9/11. The only difference here is that Obama is a popular target ("thanks, Obama!") and the claim isn't as severe, so people are less likely to laugh in your face.

[Faloestin]

what your advocating for is called profiling. then you must agree that all Muslims need to be profiled because 80% of all terrorist attacks where done by Muslims. so are you saying your fine with profiling as long as you don't like the groups they are profiling?

Yes, it is profiling, but it's reasonable. It's like a traffic cop paying more attention to a bright red Corvette than to a '02 Civic, because the Corvette is more likely to go 150mph. Profiling Muslims is no good because that class (Muslims) is protected by the constitution (just like any religious group would be if they were being investigated because of their religion). "We'd rather not pay taxes" doesn't give the tea party folks the same constitutional shield.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This matters how?

We've already found that lots of people agreeing on something doesn't mean it's necessarily true or even relevant. I mean, 40% of Fox viewers trust Fox to give them news. And Bush Jr got a second term. And Obamacare passed when we should have scrapped it and gone straight for single payer health care.

I'm still waiting to see why this "scandal" is even all that big of a deal. It wasn't breaking any law, and 75 out of 300 groups audited by the IRS were conservative, and they were being "targeted" because they were filing for tax exempt status when you're not allowed to make a tax exempt organization if your money goes towards political candidates or funding, and they had incredibly political sounding names. It was "Hey, we're making sure you're not allocating funds where you're not supposed to and thus creating a tax shelter for yourselves illegally."

[Vyxn]

Yes, it is profiling, but it's reasonable. It's like a traffic cop paying more attention to a bright red Corvette than to a '02 Civic, because the Corvette is more likely to go 150mph. Profiling Muslims is no good because that class (Muslims) is protected by the constitution (just like any religious group would be if they were being investigated because of their religion). "We'd rather not pay taxes" doesn't give the tea party folks the same constitutional shield.

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

[Cthulhu 2020]

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit employees (civil servants) in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of the executive branch, from engaging in partisan political activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

You still have yet to establish how the executive branch was involved in this other than your own reverse investigation, starting with assumption of guilt then finding evidence to fit.

[Saucexorzski]

That's his whole point... There's nothing implicating Obama, at all, other than the fact that he's the current president and universal scapegoat. You can't start from a premise like this and then look for evidence to suit your claim. It's as ridiculous as the people who think that the Bush administration had a hand in 9/11. The only difference here is that Obama is a popular target ("thanks, Obama!") and the claim isn't as severe, so people are less likely to laugh in your face.

His point has been to deter any line of thought of the possibility that Obama had a hand in this matter. I think Vxyn's claim of motive is viable, but as has been said before, it does not prove guilt. The current hearings are focused on the IRS and its personnel. As to Obama being a scape goat, that is politics. Whom ever is in power at the time of a crisis takes the blame of the populous. History should have taught you this.

[Cthulhu 2020]

His point has been to deter any line of thought of the possibility that Obama had a hand in this matter. I think Vxyn's claim of motive is viable, but as has been said before, it does not prove guilt. The current hearings are focused on the IRS and its personnel. As to Obama being a scape goat, that is politics. Whom ever is in power at the time of a crisis takes the blame of the populous. History should have taught you this.

At this point, the worst that can be pinned on Obama is not knowing wtf is going on, which is poor management, but is not any kind of gross offense that's being slung around.

[mvaliz]

i will direct you to the post above
what your advocating for is called profiling. then you must agree that all Muslims need to be profiled because 80% of all terrorist attacks where done by Muslims. so are you saying your fine with profiling as long as you don't like the groups they are profiling?

Profiling is actually a very often used tool in detective work.

First off, not ALL Muslims "need" to be profiled... but the ones who are uttering extremist language do get profiled.

Tell me, if you were a police chief in a town where several black men and women turned up dead - and you know of a white supremist goup that recently moved into the area and has become quite active. Would you NOT consider putting SOME sort of an investigation? The difference is you can't press charges or interfere in their group unless you have sufficient evidence that would require it.

This IRS thing is the same way.

"Profiling" only becomes a problem when you're inhibiting liberties due to the "profiling". The IRS only used those as "key words" to check and see if people should be audited... chances are the groups in question didn't even know they were being checked. That's perfectly fine as it's not impeding on their rights... that's perfectly legal.

Unlike the Arizona state law where they could stop anybody due to the racial profile of suspecting they may be an Illegal Immigrant - THAT is against the law. Doing initial groundwork and background checks had they known the person's name ahead of time is not illegal.